Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:53:22AM -0800, Brock Pytlik wrote:
>
>   
>> I don't have strong feelings about this. My inclination was to keep the 
>> version listed as compatible because I'd generally feel better not changing 
>> the API incompatibly this close to release. However, my advice was based on 
>> the mistaken belief that the old clients would continue to work, perhaps 
>> not ideally. With a fresh mind this morning, I see that the old clients 
>> will break because the client name wont be set, which will (can? did?) make 
>> the history module traceback. If that wasn't the case, I would continue to 
>> argue for calling this a compatible change. Now that my mind's working 
>> clearly, I see that because this will cause the old clients to throw 
>> tracebacks, it should be marked incompatible. Sorry for the confusion.
>>     
>
> No problem.  Thanks for looking at it again.
>
> If I were to do something like this in the ImageInterface constructor:
>
>     if global_settings.client_name is None:
>         global_settings.client_name = pkg_client_name
>
> would that suffice to keep it compatible?  That is, if someone has failed
> to set it directly, but continues to pass a value in through the api, then
> it'll get set that way.
>
>   
Yep, that would make it compatible and me happy. Thanks for doing this :)
Brock
>> And Danek, the change to testutils looked good to me.
>>     
>
> Thanks,
> Danek
>   

_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to